In search of a sensible middle in dealing with climate change

An op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal encourages Republicans including Ohio Gov. John Kasich to take the lead on sensible policies related to energy and climate change.

Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, writes that with “more than 26,000 heat records broken in the last 12 months and pervasive drought turning nearly half of all U.S. counties into federal disaster areas, many data-driven climate skeptics are reassessing the issue.”

Respected Republican leaders including Gov. Kasich and Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey “have spoken out about the reality of climate change…,” Mr. Krupp writes. “Even Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson, during public comments in June, conceded the reality of climate change while offering assurances that 'there will be an engineering solution' and 'we'll adapt.'"

These are good developments and signs that the United States can get beyond having “two camps talking past each other on this issue.”

He says discussions on energy policy and climate change should start with two basic propositions:

The first will be uncomfortable for skeptics, but it is unfortunately true: Dramatic alterations to the climate are here and likely to get worse — with profound damage to the economy — unless sustained action is taken. As The Economist recently editorialized about the melting Arctic: “It is a stunning illustration of global warming, the cause of the melt. It also contains grave warnings of its dangers. The world would be mad to ignore them."

The second proposition will be uncomfortable for supporters of climate action, but it is also true: Some proposed climate solutions, if not well designed or thoughtfully implemented, could damage the economy and stifle short-term growth. As much as environmentalists feel a justifiable urgency to solve this problem, we cannot ignore the economic impact of any proposed action, especially on those at the bottom of the pyramid. For any policy to succeed, it must work with the market, not against it.

Conservatives such as Govs. Kasich and Christie are key to advancing the debate, Mr. Krupp writes, because Republicans for so long have been climate-change skeptics.

“We'll have a much better shot at developing solutions to our climate and energy problems that are good for our economy if leaders from across the political spectrum get re-engaged in the debate,” Mr. Krupp concludes. “It is time for conservatives to compete with liberals to devise the best, most cost-effective climate solutions. Solving this challenge will require all of us.”

Tiny earthquakes

A new study is “renewing calls for research into the geological consequences of the booming natural gas industry in Texas,” and possibly in other states, according to this blog post from The New York Times.

The study, published online Monday, analyzes seismic activity in the Barnett Shale area in northwestern Texas from November 2009 to September 2011. Cliff Frohlich, associate director and senior research scientist at the Institute for Geophysics at the University of Texas at Austin, “found that earthquakes are far more common in the area than has been officially reported,” The Times notes.

“Relying on data made available by the EarthScope USArray Program, an array of seismometers, Dr. Frohlich identified nearly eight times as many earthquakes as had been previously reported by the National Earthquake Information Center,” according to the blog post. “While all 67 quakes were relatively minor, with magnitudes of 3.0 or less, the research provided a fuller picture of seismic activity in the Barnett Shale area.”

He found that all 24 of the most reliably identified epicenters mapped were within two miles of one or more injection wells used to dispose of wastewater created in the process of fracking for natural gas.

“In my study, they were only occurring near higher-volume injection wells,” Dr. Frohlich tells The Times. “But this research does not explain why they occur (in) some places and not others.”

He concludes with a series of questions that are pertinent for Ohio: “Is there a threshold for the rate of injection that we can set which would reduce the frequency of earthquakes? Is it different in different areas? How do we get a better understanding of the thousands of small faults in these areas? These are all questions that still need to be addressed both in Texas and elsewhere.”

In the pipeline

Low natural gas prices and the growth in its supply “has brought a benefit and a risk for pipeline companies,” according to a recent Moody's investor report highlighted in this story from FuelFix.com.

“While the demand for natural gas has risen in response to the price drop, it has also increased the business risk for pipelines due to demand for pipeline transmission shifting from dry natural gas to crude oil and natural gas liquids,” FuelFix.com reports. “That shift — in some cases — has negated the purpose of some pipelines.”

For instance, the Moody's report notes that the emergence of the Marcellus shale has increase demand for pipelines in the northeastern U.S, but the drilling boom has simultaneously dropped demand for west-to-east pipelines.

FuelFix.com notes that the pipeline sector has lessened this risk through diversification of its pipelines, long contracts and rate cases.

“The risk of a pipeline asset becoming stranded is low, considering the long lead time afforded by multiyear contracts and the industry's good track record in its commercial activities,” Moody's wrote.